Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec

Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com> Tue, 09 December 2014 20:16 UTC

Return-Path: <elagerway@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB9D81A00B5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 12:16:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WTQLWbKzRmL2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 12:16:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-x229.google.com (mail-ig0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B97361A0097 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 12:16:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ig0-f169.google.com with SMTP id hl2so6522004igb.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 12:16:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=W/b02JXbh1mZiOyg9Gp9pcMVKOC2+GgfHmHb5Ht1EI8=; b=CL4zgYYFDn9hYcg7E0Jn6SXqNS9AqHUO6WdHI4XjP4eqlmvdl0qbozVtgnAvjFjyXn 78SyrccNF95B94VHhR5tau0RMVxSCLwpqwq3j0pa1QK7vPh4tncns6q0zQwENPUZqcQL pmJ0oP+or9ajxvBrkU7pC0HcRGCQ9hGuMkrzPPOEbdGJUVN5vq1SjtBTcKH6zhmS6V8C 2VXCfkcX1XmlC1dPucAslDm2zQzzJ1/bmZHSWs+2/pVmjN9qTaUMRx2x3vUKlwPjie7g +3TKgWp5tEILjrUoPn5eqAtFP/bU5NvPWn+b7EWIs9O06+r8bSyrtyIA3oZm6iLEAgmj ixwA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.153.109 with SMTP id vf13mr2404751igb.41.1418156167734; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 12:16:07 -0800 (PST)
Sender: elagerway@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.38.137 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 12:16:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com>
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 12:16:07 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: iZQBMkQDJuApc3Ug2e3fQRu-wcI
Message-ID: <CAPF_GTaJwaS9+9uSSGTC1+RqKb=uF8UQxsP4u5jPJiRi=88-Nw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com>
To: Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e015366729d2d2d0509ce36d1
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/tNunG6c2SN_CsT1IAqr3nzK83SU
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 20:16:12 -0000

Thanks Sean,

We can not support this draft at this time.

As RTC SDK vendors we very likely will support both codecs, but we can not
stand by a decision that will "impose" dual MTI on our developer community.

According to this, every dev must use both codecs for every app that is
built using our tools. Codec selection should be their choice and not be
forced upon them. This seems to be a rather unreasonable expectation.


*Erik Lagerway <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/lagerway> | *Hookflash
<http://hookflash.com/>* | 1 (855) Hookflash ext. 2 | Twitter
<http://twitter.com/elagerway> | WebRTC.is Blog <http://webrtc.is/> *

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> At the 2nd RTCweb WG session @ IETF 91, we had a lively discussion about
> codecs, which I dubbed "the great codec compromise."  The compromise text
> that was discussed appears in slides 12-14 at [4] (which is a slight
> editorial variation of the text proposed at [2]).
>
> This message serves to confirm the sense of the room.
>
> In the room, I heard the following objections and responses (and I’m
> paraphrasing here), which I’ll take the liberty of categorizing as IPR,
> Time, and Trigger:
>
> 1) IPR:
>
> Objections: There are still IPR concerns which may restrict what a
> particular organization feels comfortable with including in their browser
> implementations.
>
> Response:  IPR concerns on this topic are well known.  There is even a
> draft summarizing the current IPR status for VP8:
> draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation.  The sense of the room was still that
> adopting the compromise text was appropriate.
>
> 2) Time:
>
> 2.1) Time to consider decision:
>
> Objection: The decision to consider the compromise proposal at this
> meeting was provided on short notice and did not provide some the
> opportunity to attend in person.
>
> Response:  Six months ago the chairs made it clear discussion would be
> revisited @ IETF 91 [0]. The first agenda proposal for the WG included this
> topic [1], and the topic was never removed by the chairs.    More
> importantly, all decisions are confirmed on list; in person attendance is
> not required to be part of the process.
>
> 2.2) Time to consider text:
>
> Objection: The proposed text [2] is too new to be considered.
>
> Response: The requirement for browsers to support both VP8 and H.264 was
> among the options in the straw poll conducted more than six months ago.
> All decisions are confirmed on list so there will be ample time to discuss
> the proposal.
>
> 3) Trigger:
>
> Objection: The “trigger” sentence [3] is all kinds of wrong because it’s
> promising that the future IETF will update this specification.
>
> Response: Like any IETF proposal, an RFC that documents the current
> proposal can be changed through the consensus process at any other time.
>
>
> After the discussion, some clarifying questions about the hums, and typing
> the hum questions on the screen, there was rough consensus in the room to
> add (aka “shove”) the proposed text into draft-ietf-rtcweb-video.  In
> keeping with IETF process, I am confirming this consensus call on the list.
>
> If anyone has any other issues that they would like to raise please do by
> December 19th.
>
> Cheers,
> spt (as chair)
>
> [0] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg11194.html
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13150.html
> [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13432.html
> [3] The one that begins with "If compelling evidence ..."
> [4] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-rtcweb-7.pdf
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>